flapackfan wrote:The administration, including Obama, Holder, BO's man, aka Al Sharpton, all say the police are the problem in Ferguson, but in Newark they are the solution.

I don't think you understand at all what is going on.

Ferguson is the tip of the iceberg of a massive problem that is only partially racially motivated (tho white people when similarly persecuted pretty much buckle), that is about to become a very big long term problem.

It is a symptom of changes in American urban evolution as we shift toward more mature cities and a more European style urban geographic wealth distribution. The old US model used to be the donut, that is city cores were home to the poor, with wealth surrounding the city in a ring. White flight and whatnot. Living the American dream in the burbs in a car dependent lifestyle. Suburban governments had no real connection to their city and they typically insulated themselves from the city. They also tended to be smaller communities.

The wealth ring has continued to pulse outward unabated. What has changed is that it is now frequently bumping up on the 45 minute commute livability rule, that is, it really sucks to live where your commute is longer than 45 minutes, so desirability is dropping in the newer nice fringes of the outward pulse. On top of this younger generations think cars suck, especially gas powered cars. So the American dream in the suburbs is pretty much dying for younger generations, especially the wealthier segment. They would rather live in the city. So gentrification is in high gear in major cities nationwide. City cores are becoming places of wealth, not poverty. This effect is pushing the poor out to the suburbs, where it is cheaper to live.

It should be noted that Ferguson is a suburb.

The long term problem is that the suburbs are not equipped to deal with this situation, at all. As the poor move in, land values continue to drop, higher end businesses move elsewhere, and taxes revenue drops like a rock. Cities can handle poor areas with no tax base because the cities are large enough and sufficiently commercial that things can balance out. The suburbs OTOH, were designed to be isolated from the city. There is no political crossover. There is no tax sharing. The suburbs do not function unless they are middle class or above; local governments lack the revenue base to keep the schools open and government afloat. So they turn to the police. Police can generate revenue. It is how the government survives in poor suburbs like Ferguson, the cops are the only thing keeping them afloat.

But the people are fighting back.

This isn't only a black problem and it isn't isolated to Ferguson at all. The old US urban model is collapsing, and this is a side effect. The suburbs, designed to keep the poor out, have no means of dealing with poverty once it arrives, and the political landscape of the suburbs means that once the poor arrive, overpolicing is the only way to keep the government afloat. Poor planning in hindsight, but its now the reality we have to deal with, and there are no good answers.

The US is moving towards more of a European urban model, where the poor live in the burbs and the wealthy live in the city. No amount of policy can fight it; quite simply people have realized that it sucks to live life sitting in traffic.

Newark is a city not a suburb. Newark does not fund itself by overpolicing its population. Ferguson's government survives because of overpolicing. Were overpolicing to stop in Ferguson, the local government would collapse.

Excuse me, but I understand just fine. The cause of urban blight has been, and still is, government intervention. Research as far back as 1870 with NY city's attempts to subsidize away the poor has left the poorest of society trapped in a perpetual cycle of poverty. Just as the Democrats were the party of slavery, so are they party of buying votes through entitlements. I know you believe in "European Market system" as a vehicle to transform the condition of the poor, but if it actually was, the EU would not depend on the "World Bank" and other sister nations, to prop up it's floundering members. The nation states of Europe, other than Great Britian, have needed the US to assure their security, and the dollar to stabilize their markets.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen prove that they are insured, but doesn't require every person to prove they are a citizen. Many who can't prove they are citizens will receive free insurance from those that are citizens.

flapackfan wrote:The administration, including Obama, Holder, BO's man, aka Al Sharpton, all say the police are the problem in Ferguson, but in Newark they are the solution.

I don't think you understand at all what is going on.

Ferguson is the tip of the iceberg of a massive problem that is only partially racially motivated (tho white people when similarly persecuted pretty much buckle), that is about to become a very big long term problem.

It is a symptom of changes in American urban evolution as we shift toward more mature cities and a more European style urban geographic wealth distribution. The old US model used to be the donut, that is city cores were home to the poor, with wealth surrounding the city in a ring. White flight and whatnot. Living the American dream in the burbs in a car dependent lifestyle. Suburban governments had no real connection to their city and they typically insulated themselves from the city. They also tended to be smaller communities.

The wealth ring has continued to pulse outward unabated. What has changed is that it is now frequently bumping up on the 45 minute commute livability rule, that is, it really sucks to live where your commute is longer than 45 minutes, so desirability is dropping in the newer nice fringes of the outward pulse. On top of this younger generations think cars suck, especially gas powered cars. So the American dream in the suburbs is pretty much dying for younger generations, especially the wealthier segment. They would rather live in the city. So gentrification is in high gear in major cities nationwide. City cores are becoming places of wealth, not poverty. This effect is pushing the poor out to the suburbs, where it is cheaper to live.

It should be noted that Ferguson is a suburb.

The long term problem is that the suburbs are not equipped to deal with this situation, at all. As the poor move in, land values continue to drop, higher end businesses move elsewhere, and taxes revenue drops like a rock. Cities can handle poor areas with no tax base because the cities are large enough and sufficiently commercial that things can balance out. The suburbs OTOH, were designed to be isolated from the city. There is no political crossover. There is no tax sharing. The suburbs do not function unless they are middle class or above; local governments lack the revenue base to keep the schools open and government afloat. So they turn to the police. Police can generate revenue. It is how the government survives in poor suburbs like Ferguson, the cops are the only thing keeping them afloat.

But the people are fighting back.

This isn't only a black problem and it isn't isolated to Ferguson at all. The old US urban model is collapsing, and this is a side effect. The suburbs, designed to keep the poor out, have no means of dealing with poverty once it arrives, and the political landscape of the suburbs means that once the poor arrive, overpolicing is the only way to keep the government afloat. Poor planning in hindsight, but its now the reality we have to deal with, and there are no good answers.

The US is moving towards more of a European urban model, where the poor live in the burbs and the wealthy live in the city. No amount of policy can fight it; quite simply people have realized that it sucks to live life sitting in traffic.

Newark is a city not a suburb. Newark does not fund itself by overpolicing its population. Ferguson's government survives because of overpolicing. Were overpolicing to stop in Ferguson, the local government would collapse.

What Waldo described in his last post is actually pretty dangerous. Americans didn't just all of a sudden wake up and become tired of driving to work; the government is going out of its way to make the privately owned vehicle as inconvenient of a transportation option as possible.

Los Angeles is one major metropolitan area that has implemented these kinds of policies; adding bike and bus lanes while cutting car lanes in an attempt to promote "environmental consciousness." People are not accepting this transition with open arms. On the contrary, most are feeling pretty angry over such a ridiculous inconvenience.

Lol, except Los Angeles hasn't even implemented their plan yet, which is in stark contrast to previous actions of adding lanes. Please tell us some more whoppers on how the evil governments have restricted your ability to drive your car.

Pckfn23 wrote:Lol, except Los Angeles hasn't even implemented their plan yet, which is in stark contrast to previous actions of adding lanes. Please tell us some more whoppers on how the evil governments have restricted your ability to drive your car.

This particular plan has been approved, but not yet implemented. However, similar policies are already being enforced around the greater L.A. area, the difference being that this policy affects Metro L.A.

Again, my point in citing this example is that, contrary to Waldo's assertion, people are not just magically having a change of heart and deciding to use public transportation because they want to. They are doing it because the govt is trying to make use of personal vehicles as implausible as possible.

flapackfan wrote:The administration, including Obama, Holder, BO's man, aka Al Sharpton, all say the police are the problem in Ferguson, but in Newark they are the solution.

I don't think you understand at all what is going on.

Ferguson is the tip of the iceberg of a massive problem that is only partially racially motivated (tho white people when similarly persecuted pretty much buckle), that is about to become a very big long term problem.

It is a symptom of changes in American urban evolution as we shift toward more mature cities and a more European style urban geographic wealth distribution. The old US model used to be the donut, that is city cores were home to the poor, with wealth surrounding the city in a ring. White flight and whatnot. Living the American dream in the burbs in a car dependent lifestyle. Suburban governments had no real connection to their city and they typically insulated themselves from the city. They also tended to be smaller communities.

The wealth ring has continued to pulse outward unabated. What has changed is that it is now frequently bumping up on the 45 minute commute livability rule, that is, it really sucks to live where your commute is longer than 45 minutes, so desirability is dropping in the newer nice fringes of the outward pulse. On top of this younger generations think cars suck, especially gas powered cars. So the American dream in the suburbs is pretty much dying for younger generations, especially the wealthier segment. They would rather live in the city. So gentrification is in high gear in major cities nationwide. City cores are becoming places of wealth, not poverty. This effect is pushing the poor out to the suburbs, where it is cheaper to live.

It should be noted that Ferguson is a suburb.

The long term problem is that the suburbs are not equipped to deal with this situation, at all. As the poor move in, land values continue to drop, higher end businesses move elsewhere, and taxes revenue drops like a rock. Cities can handle poor areas with no tax base because the cities are large enough and sufficiently commercial that things can balance out. The suburbs OTOH, were designed to be isolated from the city. There is no political crossover. There is no tax sharing. The suburbs do not function unless they are middle class or above; local governments lack the revenue base to keep the schools open and government afloat. So they turn to the police. Police can generate revenue. It is how the government survives in poor suburbs like Ferguson, the cops are the only thing keeping them afloat.

But the people are fighting back.

This isn't only a black problem and it isn't isolated to Ferguson at all. The old US urban model is collapsing, and this is a side effect. The suburbs, designed to keep the poor out, have no means of dealing with poverty once it arrives, and the political landscape of the suburbs means that once the poor arrive, overpolicing is the only way to keep the government afloat. Poor planning in hindsight, but its now the reality we have to deal with, and there are no good answers.

The US is moving towards more of a European urban model, where the poor live in the burbs and the wealthy live in the city. No amount of policy can fight it; quite simply people have realized that it sucks to live life sitting in traffic.

Newark is a city not a suburb. Newark does not fund itself by overpolicing its population. Ferguson's government survives because of overpolicing. Were overpolicing to stop in Ferguson, the local government would collapse.

Was kind of following along with your logic train until the resorting to police to increase revenue argument. Would surely be interested in seeing some numbers with this. But I have to imagine the cost to run a police force, run court hearings, paying their wages, equipment, etc as a means to raise revenue are pennies compared to property taxes and state and federal money.

Pckfn23 wrote:Lol, except Los Angeles hasn't even implemented their plan yet, which is in stark contrast to previous actions of adding lanes. Please tell us some more whoppers on how the evil governments have restricted your ability to drive your car.

This particular plan has been approved, but not yet implemented. However, similar policies are already being enforced around the greater L.A. area, the difference being that this policy affects Metro L.A.

Again, my point in citing this example is that, contrary to Waldo's assertion, people are not just magically having a change of heart and deciding to use public transportation because they want to. They are doing it because the govt is trying to make use of personal vehicles as implausible as possible.

isn't it obvious that something needs to change? private transportation in metro area's is on the way out, it's extremely costly, and a poor way of utilizing natural resources, and just look at all the pollution.

I'am not so sure about WAldo's point of view, but mass commuting systems are on the rise, people are more and more fed up with driving in traffic a hr or even more one way to work a day, I tend to agree with you, city managers don't want you to either, and one day there will be restriction whether your allowed to or not.

BF004 wrote:Would surely be interested in seeing some numbers with this. But I have to imagine the cost to run a police force, run court hearings, paying their wages, equipment, etc as a means to raise revenue are pennies compared to property taxes and state and federal money.

Ferguson's budget relies heavily on public safety and court fines that have skyrocketed in recent years. A review of Ferguson’s financial statements indicates that court fine collections now account for one-fifth of total operating revenue.

And of course, from the Justice department's report on Ferguson:

III. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE

City officials have consistently set maximizing revenue as the priority for Ferguson’s law enforcement activity. Ferguson generates a significant and increasing amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions. The City has budgeted for, and achieved, significant increases in revenue from municipal code enforcement over the last several years, and these increases are projected to continue. Of the $11.07 million in general fund revenue the City collected in fiscal year 2010, $1.38 million came from fines and fees collected by the court; similarly, in fiscal year 2011, the City’s general fund revenue of $11.44 million included $1.41 million from fines and fees. In its budget for fiscal year 2012, however, the City predicted that revenue from municipal fines and fees would increase over 30% from the previous year’s amount to $1.92 million; the court exceeded that target, collecting $2.11 million. In its budget for fiscal year 2013, the City budgeted for fines and fees to yield $2.11 million; the court exceeded that target as well, collecting $2.46 million. For 2014, the City budgeted for the municipal court to generate $2.63 million in revenue. The City has not yet made public the actual revenue collected that year, although budget documents forecasted lower revenue thanwas budgeted. Nonetheless, for fiscal year 2015, the City’s budget anticipates fine and fee revenues to account for $3.09 million of a projected $13.26 million in general fund revenues.

City, police, and court officials for years have worked in concert to maximize revenue at every stage of the enforcement process, beginning with how fines and fine enforcement processes are established. In a February 2011 report requested by the City Council at a Financial Planning Session and drafted by Ferguson’s Finance Director with contributions from Chief Jackson, the Finance Director reported on “efforts to increase efficiencies and maximize collection” by the municipal court. The report included an extensive comparison of Ferguson’s fines to those of surrounding municipalities and noted with approval that Ferguson’s fines are “at or near the top of the list.” The chart noted, for example, that while other municipalities’ parking fines generally range from $5 to $100, Ferguson’s is $102. The chart noted also that the charge for “Weeds/Tall Grass” was as little as $5 in one city but, in Ferguson, it ranged from $77 to $102. The report stated that the acting prosecutor had reviewed the City’s “high volume offenses” and “started recommending higher fines on these cases, and recommending probation only infrequently.” While the report stated that this recommendation was because of a “large volume of non-compliance,” the recommendation was in fact emphasized as one of several ways that the code enforcement system had been honed to produce more revenue.

In combination with a high fine schedule, the City directs FPD to aggressively enforce the municipal code. City and police leadership pressure officers to write citations, independent of any public safety need, and rely on citation productivity to fund the City budget. In an email from March 2010, the Finance Director wrote to Chief Jackson that “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year. What are your thoughts? Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall, it’s not an insignificant issue.” Chief Jackson responded that the City would see an increase in fines once more officers were hired and that he could target the $1.5 million forecast. Significantly, Chief Jackson stated that he was also “looking at different shift schedules which will place more officers on the street, which in turn will increase traffic enforcement per shift.” Shortly thereafter, FPD switched to the 12-hour shift schedule for its patrol officers, which FPD continues to use. Law enforcement experience has shown that this schedule makes community policing more difficult—a concern that we have also heard directly from FPD officers. Nonetheless, while FPD heavily considered the revenue implications of the 12-hour shift and certain other factors such as its impact on overtime and sick time usage, we have found no evidence that FPD considered the consequences for positive community engagement. The City’s 2014 budget itself stated that since December 2010, “the percent of [FPD] resources allocated to traffic enforcement has increased,” and “[a]s a result, traffic enforcement related collections increased” in the following two years. The 2015 budget added that even after those initial increases, in fiscal year 2012-2013, FPD was once again “successful in increasing their proportion of resources dedicated to traffic enforcement” and increasing collections.

As directed, FPD supervisors and line officers have undertaken the aggressive code enforcement required to meet the City’s revenue generation expectations. As discussed below in Part III.A., FPD officers routinely conduct stops that have little relation to public safety and a questionable basis in law. FPD officers routinely issue multiple citations during a single stop, often for the same violation. Issuing three or four charges in one stop is not uncommon in Ferguson. Officers sometimes write six, eight, or, in at least one instance, fourteen citations for a single encounter. Indeed, officers told us that some compete to see who can issue the largest number of citations during a single stop.

The February 2011 report to the City Council notes that the acting prosecutor—with the apparent approval of the Police Chief—“talked with police officers about ensuring all necessary summonses are written for each incident, i.e. when DWI charges are issued, are the correct companion charges being issued, such as speeding, failure to maintain a single lane, no insurance, and no seat belt, etc.” The prosecutor noted that “[t]his is done to ensure that a proper resolution to all cases is being achieved and that the court is maintaining the correct volume for offenses occurring within the city.” Notably, the “correct volume” of law enforcement is uniformly presented in City documents as related to revenue generation, rather than in terms of what is necessary to promote public safety. Each month, the municipal court provides FPD supervisors with a list of the number of tickets issued by each officer and each squad. Supervisors have posted the list inside the police station, a tactic officers say is meant to push them to write more citations.

Pckfn23 wrote:Lol, except Los Angeles hasn't even implemented their plan yet, which is in stark contrast to previous actions of adding lanes. Please tell us some more whoppers on how the evil governments have restricted your ability to drive your car.

This particular plan has been approved, but not yet implemented. However, similar policies are already being enforced around the greater L.A. area, the difference being that this policy affects Metro L.A.

Again, my point in citing this example is that, contrary to Waldo's assertion, people are not just magically having a change of heart and deciding to use public transportation because they want to. They are doing it because the govt is trying to make use of personal vehicles as implausible as possible.

Except that wasn't Waldo's assertion. He pointed out that the new generations are choosing not to "invest" in the things like cars and houses. They are not magically having a change of heart, that was their decision from the get go. They don't want to commute like the generations before them did. Policies against vehicles, which are nonexistent, are not a factor for these people.

Please what are all these policies that were implemented around the country that discourage vehicle use? The government is not forcing people not to commute.

A few years back, Governor Brown signed the 3 Feet for Safety Act, which requires that drivers provide cyclists with a 3 foot cushion (regardless of whether or not the person is riding in a bike lane) or receive a ticket. On the surface, it might sound somewhat insignificant, but the law has paved the way for some pretty obnoxious behavior on the part of cyclists which has resulted in increased instances of road rage.

In terms of public transit, more and more lanes have been and are being converted into bus-only lanes, which has increased commute times. This is the case in my city (L.A. suburb), and many neighboring cities.

Also worth noting is the increasing number of DUI checkpoints that occur on any given night.

The government's desire is for people to drive less. That much is clear, and it's not even debatable.

Whether or not younger generations' have a contempt for cars and houses that originates from predisposition, and not governmental influence- well that is very much up for debate.

You're misrepresenting that act. There is a clause in it that negates your disagreement.

The laws of one city are not the laws of an entire nation.

Do you have proof that this law and these other ambiguous laws are discouraging people from driving? You have yet to provide evidence that governmental influence has actually discouraged people from commuting.

It is a funny juxtaposition to want the government to build your roads for you, but always insist how evil it is.

Papa John wrote:A few years back, Governor Brown signed the 3 Feet for Safety Act, which requires that drivers provide cyclists with a 3 foot cushion (regardless of whether or not the person is riding in a bike lane) or receive a ticket. On the surface, it might sound somewhat insignificant, but the law has paved the way for some pretty obnoxious behavior on the part of cyclists which has resulted in increased instances of road rage.

In terms of public transit, more and more lanes have been and are being converted into bus-only lanes, which has increased commute times. This is the case in my city (L.A. suburb), and many neighboring cities.

Also worth noting is the increasing number of DUI checkpoints that occur on any given night.

The government's desire is for people to drive less. That much is clear, and it's not even debatable.

Whether or not younger generations' have a contempt for cars and houses that originates from predisposition, and not governmental influence- well that is very much up for debate.

The contempt for cars stems from the pollution they spew. They are also quite expensive to own and operate.

But traffic is the bigger item. There have been several studies done about traffic and its effects on you. Longer commutes strongly correlate with unhealthy individuals. People's attitudes about it, their happiness, and their health start to decline strongly at about 45 minutes (each way). In most big cities, one cannot reach the city core from the outer suburbs in 45 minutes during rush hour with the traffic (and vice versa). It gets much worse than that; in Atlanta that's about a 2 hr trip, even longer on bad days (and who can forget snowjam)

You really have much less exposure to bad traffic if you live in the city core, except on major surface streets, as you are typically going against traffic; when not trips are shorter. You are also typically closer to work when living near the city core, at least the average person (esp higher paying jobs). Nevermind that there is transit should you want to use it, that's a perk on top of the lesser traffic.

Traffic is one of the big driving factors behind gentrification. Life in the burbs, especially the newer, further ones, is a life spent sitting in traffic, (unless you happen to be one of the lucky few to have a job nearby in your suburban quadrant, and keep it that way for life). Not a good life at all, especially if combined with long hours at a stressful job. Even if its not reality for many that live there, its become the stereotype, and just like welfare mommas, its a powerful image that'll never go away, no matter if things change.

Come now, I work for the gov't. You see this Hillary email thing? Do you see how they are targeting her assistants who used personal cellphones for work, and how its supposedly a widespread gov't problem?

Yeah, no. Working from home will never be kosher for the feds. There is occasional uber secure teleworking, but that is limited to 1 day/wk and only some can do it, and its likely to roll back in wake of this email thing.

This is one of those stories that is a press and political ploy to have something to write about and hopefully weaken Hillary a bit (the idea that she actually did anything illegal is an utter pipe dream that only conspiracy theorists can possibly believe), but it is going to have massive repercussions about how the feds do business for a long, long time. Much like the conferences wasting taxpayer money stories from the late 90's, few realize how powerfully these stories affect how the gov't did and still does business.